From Catholic Vote:
FEDERAL COURT GUTS OBAMACARE
Remember when Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass Obamacare to know what’s in it?
She wasn’t joking.
Four years ago partisan Democrats rammed through the passage of Obamacare in the middle of the night. Now their recklessness has cost them.
A federal court ruled today that Obamacare federal subsidies in 36 states are illegal. [The court found this to be “unambiguous”.]
Here is the quick summary: Obamacare was established to provide subsidies (taxpayer dollars) to qualified applicants who enrolled in health care via a state exchange. Backers of Obamacare never imagined that any state (let alone 36) would refuse to set up a state exchange. After all, when has any government said no to free federal money? [Has your insurance been cancelled yet? How’s that “Affordable” Care Act working for you?]
But many states recognized that they would be on the hook when the federal subsidies disappeared. And so they refused to go along. [Do you live in a state with exchanges or which fended them off?]
When the states began saying no, the lawless Obama administration simply flouted the law. The IRS ignored the plain text of the law [I’m shocked!] and unilaterally decided that subsidies would also go to persons who signed up on exchanges established by the federal government — even though Congress never approved this option!
The federal court today rejected this lawless option, stating that the Obamacare law “unambiguously” stipulated that subsidies were to go to individuals obtaining insurance through an “exchange established by the state.”
The Court was clear: Congress makes the laws. Barack Obama does not. [Tell that to Barack Obama.]
If upheld on appeal, millions of Obamacare recipients would lose their taxpayer subsidy. [Get that?] The entire program would become unsustainable and unworkable. [Grok?]
While today’s verdict will likely be appealed, the future unraveling of Obamacare seems inevitable. The American people remain strongly opposed to the premium spikes, [I wonder if yours are like mine. I get a nosebleed reading my bills.] restrictions on doctors and care, and assaults on religious liberty and conscience.
But America still wants and needs real healthcare reform.
Obamacare has failed. And is now illegal.
It must be replaced with a reform solution that is both constitutional, and that provides true affordable and accessible care – especially for the most vulnerable.
Today’s court decision opens the door to a new path forward.
Catholics must help lead the way. [Do I hear an “Amen!”?]
¡Vaya lío!
Loading ...
Precisely. We were told outright by Nancy Pelosi (Catholic in most excellent standing with leadership), that you have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it. As Catholics, we should always use virtue and intellect rather than propaganda, emotion and irrationality. As such, we should have all been urged by this Catholic to “read the bill to find out what’s in it.”
In the end, their lies continue to make more and more of a mockery of this most excellent and until recently successful experiment in self governance.
Unfortunately, even in our own Church we find irrational people who don’t use the “talents” that were given to us from on high and just bury our intellect and capability in the ground as we embark on the acquisition of power and glory such as ladder climbers like Ms. Pelosi. It’s funny how they all share the same traits. Disobedience to magestarium. Rejection of church teachings on marriage, sexuality, life and contraception. They more deeply reject intellectualism and truth as Nancy has shown us.
In the end, those that are spiritually led astray by these people find themselves in a world of hurt.
Give up your lies and come back to the One True Faith. We all warmly welcome your conversion.
I am very sorry reading this that the new system is so quickly falling apart. We complain a lot in the UK about our healthcare system, but we actually have a great deal to be thankful for. I can’t imagine how it must be to be worrying about whether medical bills are paid for a loved one who has a chronic and/or serious condition. It does seem outrageous that in a first world country in the 21st century a fair, universal system is still not in play. You have so many Catholic hospitals, is there any way they can be brought in to help the situation? I must admit, it all seems very complicated to me and I can’t claim to understand it all.
By the way, does Nancy Pelosi always talk with her teeth clenched like that? Makes her look untrustworthy…..
There actually were two decisions today and they arrived at opposite conclusions:
Conflicting decisions between federal Circuit Courts of Appeals are usually resolved by the Supreme Court. Since they won’t start hearing new cases until next October, it will be at least sometime next year before the result is announced.
The health care system in the USA used to be the BEST in the world and still could be! Socialized medicine (Obamacare) is not and NEVER will be an improvement on the current system. In my experience, no one in the USA was ever denied adequate health care regardless of insurance or lack of. And I come from a family of people who work in medicine, both doctors and nurses. I pray this law is repealed in its entirety before it is too late. Government control of health care can only lead to rationing and euthanasia. We all need to pray for more vocations so we can once again staff our Catholic hospitals and schools with priests and nuns!
Sadly, Obama’s court packing plan at the DC Circuit will very likely lead to the decision getting reversed.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/barack-obama-court-strategy-obamacare-109258.html
If the DC Circuit reverses en blanc, I seriously doubt the Supreme Court will take the case. Even if the Supreme Court takes the case (which it almost certainly will if the decision stands), I don’t see Roberts sinking the law, which this decision would do. That being said, we should celebrate for now a court decision that actually read the text of what the dang law said and restrained the most imperial presidency in the history of the Republic.
If Obama even appeals the case, the DC court’s decision is automatically vacated, so the SCOTUS will likely not take up the case.
And while I hate Obamacare, I was someone who for years couldn’t get ANY healthcare, because I was uninsured, unemployed, but living with my parents, and had preexisting conditions. I didn’t qualify for Medicaid in IL because I lived with my parents and received over half of my support from them, and my parents wouldn’t pay for the high-risk pool in IL (and funny thing about no job and student loans, I couldn’t pay for it myself,) and no insurance company would take me because I have asthma. Really. So yes, there were people in this country who couldn’t get health care; there still will be. As long as people look to the government to solve their problems, there always will be; Christ promised that we would always have the poor with us =-\
The law is clear. The law was clear in the Hobby Lobby case. What is not clear is the integrity of the judicial system.
Rachel K says:
I am very sorry reading this that the new system is so quickly falling apart. We complain a lot in the UK about our healthcare system, but we actually have a great deal to be thankful for. I can’t imagine how it must be to be worrying about whether medical bills are paid
A few years ago I saw John Burns interviewed extensively on c-span. He is a Brit who is the outstanding war correspondent for the New York Times. He extolled the national healthcare system in England. Then he added that he had been treated for cancer, beginning in England, then going to the US. he said that if he had continued the treatment in England, he would now be dead. Then he added that his wife would also be dead and that his newborn son would not have survived.
He concluded by saying set for his country he wants the English system. For his family he wants the American system
That people vote for this woman is proof the world has lost its mind.
I have said for a long time that healthcare in the US is a complicated issue, but Obamacare simply led to further complication. If you really wanted healthcare costs to plummet, you would open up doctors offices to competition. Why can’t we have a menu at a doctor’s office of procedures and the cost of an insured versus uninsured procedure? Why can’t we bargain with our doctors for a different price if I pay today out of pocket versus through insurance? Why can’t insurance be limited to catastrophic heath issues with all minor or less critical issues being ala carte and out of pocket? Why can’t the law make the Family Practices more transparent. Doctors stick it to you with a band-aid that costs $40. Insurance Companies stick it to you by throwing you out of a hospital and into a nursing home or rehab center. The government just sticks it to you- period. Enough is enough. Follow some capitalistic rules and drive prices down. Government just seeks control.
Sonshine, what are capitalistic rules?
As far as I know certain economic analyses suggest that prices can be driven down by competition, but this isn’t a ‘rule’, nobody is bound to follow the logic of competition. That is, unless some authority – say, government – enforces a no-cartel rule or the like. But what is that, get gummint out of the market?
So what if the market players, following their “rational self-interest” decide to form a cartel? This is not forbidden by any necessary logic, nothing flows from some basic fundamental principle (maybe you can correct me — but in so doing please avoid the vacuous “theology of mammon” if you can).
I suspect that you have a whole lotta ideology all up in your economics? Nothing to be surprised at in my opinion, economics – both left and right – and ideology are almost synonymous, I think.
@Reconverted Idiot
I believe my point wasn’t suggesting to have gubmint removed from the equation. If gubmint was concerned about the healthcare of Americans, it would make laws that would allow for broader markets, not single payer, not rationing, and not subsidization. Capitalistic rules, perhaps not the best choice of words, refer to principles of capitalism (i.e. broader competition drives down price).
I also believe that there are laws on the books about cartels and monopolization, so forgive me if I am not quite sure what you are getting at. I am under the impression that you immediately thought that I was busting out an Adam Smith, Laissez-faire, get the government out of everything Libertarianism, wave the flag, ‘murica. That wasn’t the case.